ABC Chairman criticises media's climate change coverage

MARK COLVIN: The Chairman of the ABC Maurice Newman has attacked the media for being too willing to accept the conventional wisdom on climate change.

In a speech to senior ABC staff this morning he said climate change was an example of "group-think".

Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked.

Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he's waiting for proof either way.

Before his appointment to the ABC board Mr Newman had a long career in stockbroking and investment banking.

He says it used to puzzle him why journalists did not see through 'corporate wizards' such as Alan Bond and Christopher Skase.

Again Mr Newman blames "uncritical group-think".

The ABC Chairman spoke to Brendan Trembath.

MAURICE NEWMAN: The media hasn't been good at picking these things up and it's really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.

And I brought in as well in that vain what's been going on in climate change where there's been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Do you think the ABC has been too quick to accept the conventional wisdom that climate change is a fact of life that it's happening according to eminent scientists?

MAURICE NEWMAN: I think the ABC has probably been more balanced than most in the mainstream media. I think that we've listened to the words of sceptics as well as those who are scientists in the field.

But climate change is at the moment an emotional issue but it really is the fundamental issue about the need to bring voices that have authority and are relevant to the particular issue to the attention of our audiences so that they themselves can make decisions. So that we are seen to trust and respect them sufficiently that they can make up their own minds about the various points of view that are being expressed through the medium of the ABC.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: So should the ABC be trying harder to seek out people in authority who deny climate change?

MAURICE NEWMAN: Climate change was only a part of one of four examples which I gave. I think we should...

BRENDAN TREMBATH: But it's the hottest topic around at the moment which is why I'm singling it out.

MAURICE NEWMAN: Yeah but I think the point is that hopefully what I was saying in my speech is good for all seasons.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Do you have your own particularly view on this? Is there some doubt in your mind about climate change?

MAURICE NEWMAN: My view on any of these topics is to keep an open mind and I still have an open mind on climate change, I have an open mind on a whole range of issues because I think that to have a closed mind leaves you in a position where if you take a strong stance you are likely to be wrong-footed.

And I've just made the point that I've been around long enough to know that consensus and conventional wisdom doesn't always serve you well and that unless you leave some room for an alternative point of view you are likely to go down a wrong track.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Even though we've got people talking about longer and more severe bushfire seasons, the melting of polar ice caps, you still have your doubts?

MAURICE NEWMAN: I think that there are points of view supporting what you've just said, there are other points of view which will discount that and they come from also eminent positions; these are not cranks. Many of the people who have a different point of view on the climate science are respectable and credentialed scientists themselves.

So as I said, I'm not a scientist and I'm like anybody else in the public I have to listen to all points of view and then make judgements when we're asked to vote on particular policies.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Would you say you're a climate change denier or not as obvious as that?

MAURICE NEWMAN: I am an agnostic and I have always been an agnostic and I will remain and agnostic until I've found compelling evidence on one side or the other that will move me. I think that what seems fairly clear to me is that the climate science is still being developed. There are a lot question marks about some of the fundamental data which has been used to build models that requires caution.